 |
| John L. Hill |
Victim impact statements were requested and arrangements to transport Vandewater, who was in custody in a Saskatchewan institution, were made before he appeared in Miramichi April 4, 2012, for sentencing.
Years later, Vandewater was charged with the murder of his cellmate, Christopher Van Camp, at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary “Max Unit.” On the night of June 6 and 7, 2017, Vandewater admitted inflicting the injuries or wounds that caused Van Camp’s death but argued at trial it was not a repetition of previous bad behaviour. His defence was that when he inflicted those injuries or wounds, he was acting in self-defence or he had been provoked. The trial judge rejected his claim and Vandewater was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without
Anatolii Shcherbatiuk: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Vandewater appealed this conviction to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. He claimed the judge in the judge-only trial acted unfairly by making frequent interventions during the trial that bolstered the Crown’s case and created an appearance of bias. The appellant also claimed that the judge misinterpreted key pieces of evidence, leading to unsupported findings of fact.
Van Camp had been returned to Saskatchewan Penitentiary in late May 2017 for violating parole conditions. He was double bunked (two to a cell) with Vandewater. Both men consented to the placement. On the morning of June 7, 2017, guards found Van Camp covered with institutional blankets, lying on his left side, facing the wall and unresponsive, with multiple wounds and trauma to his body. An autopsy report noted 26 sharp force stab wounds around Van Camp’s eyes and forehead and other stab wounds to his chest and back.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal listened to Vandewater’s objections that the trial was unfair and that the judge misconstrued the evidence. It delivered its decision dismissing the appeal on Jan. 28, 2025 (R. v. Vandewater, 2025 SKCA 8).
The trial judge made about 120 interjections during direct and cross-examinations. The appeal court may intervene if the trial was unfair or if an appearance of unfairness occurred (R. v. Khan, 2001 SCC 86). However, the onus rests with the appellant to show that the gravity of the irregularity was sufficient to create the appearance of unfairness that would shake public confidence in the administration of justice (R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20). As noted in Khan, an appellant is not entitled to a perfect trial; minor irregularities are bound to happen. The Court of Appeal referred to a passage in R. v. Brouillard, [1985] 1 SCR 39 where Justice Antonio Lamer clarified that judges are no longer required to be passive — sphinx judges — and can intervene in an adversarial debate.
A judge’s trial management power was set out in R. v. Samaniego, 2022 SCC 9, that allows judicial intervention where it is necessary for focusing and clarifying the evidence, curtailing repetitive or needless evidence, dispensing with proof of the uncontroversial. The judge may also intervene to ensure witness responses do not unduly hamper trial progress or lead to protraction of the proceedings.
Interventions are not deemed excessive just by their numbers. It is the responsibility of the appellant to demonstrate how the trial judge’s interjections interfered with trial fairness or demonstrated a judicial bias.
Vandewater also claimed the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence. Misapprehension of evidence can involve failure to consider evidence material to an issue, a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, a failure to give proper effect to the evidence and failure to resolve material conflicts in the evidence (R. v. Kwon, 2024 SKCA 50, R. v. Solivio, 2022 SKCA 117).
The trial judge did not believe that Van Camp was exhibiting signs of paranoia and threatened to kill Vandewater. There was evidence the two men had a compatible relationship. Simply because the judge did not accept an inference put forward by Vandewater does not translate into a misapprehension of evidence (R. v. Clark, 2005 SCC 2; R. v. Hosack, 2022 BCCA 226; and R. v. Swales, 2014 BCCA 350). There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Van Camp acted out from the ill-effects of a drug overdose. Nor was there medical evidence to indicate psychiatric or mental health sequela.
The Appeal Court could not find that the inferences drawn by the trial judge were not grounded in the evidence or that the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence. Although it may be that the trial judge erred in determining exactly how the altercation between the inmates took place, the trial judge got it right that the two had been in a fight. The severity of the beating as shown by the wounds shows the trial judge fairly assessed the situation. Vandewater intentionally assaulted and killed Van Camp.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.